Multiplex Digital Droplet PCR for Simultaneous Detection and Quantification of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) and Swine Influenza A Virus in Oral Fluids: Validation and Field Application

Introduction

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) and swine influenza A virus (SIV) are two of the most economically significant viral respiratory pathogens affecting commercial swine operations worldwide. PRRSV, an enveloped positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus of the family Arteriviridae, causes reproductive failure in sows and respiratory disease in growing pigs [1, 2]. Swine influenza A virus, an enveloped negative-sense segmented RNA virus of the family Orthomyxoviridae, is a primary agent of acute respiratory outbreaks in all age groups (as described in the Merck Veterinary Manual). Both viruses frequently co-circulate in herds, and co-infections are common, often leading to exacerbated clinical signs and prolonged shedding [3, 4, 5]. Accurate and timely detection of these pathogens is critical for implementing effective control measures and reducing economic losses [6, 7].

Oral fluids have emerged as a practical, non-invasive sample type for population-level surveillance in swine herds [6, 7]. Rope-based collection of oral fluids allows pooling of secretions from multiple animals, increasing the probability of detecting circulating pathogens [7]. However, the matrix is dilute and often contains inhibitors that compromise the performance of conventional reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) [8]. Moreover, mixed infections with low viral loads pose challenges for reliable quantification using standard curve-based methods.

Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) offers an alternative paradigm for nucleic acid quantification based on endpoint partitioning and Poisson statistics. Unlike qPCR, ddPCR provides absolute quantification without reliance on external calibrators and is less susceptible to amplification inhibitors [9]. Multiplex ddPCR extends these advantages by enabling simultaneous detection and quantification of multiple targets in a single reaction. This article reviews the development, analytical validation, and field application of a multiplex ddPCR assay for the simultaneous absolute quantification of PRRSV and SIV RNA from swine oral fluid samples. The assay is contextualized within the broader landscape of swine respiratory diagnostics and compared with established RT-qPCR methods.

Principles of Digital Droplet PCR

Digital droplet PCR partitions a reaction mixture into thousands to millions of discrete droplets, each containing zero or one or more target molecules [9]. After thermal cycling, droplets are classified as positive or negative based on endpoint fluorescence. The fraction of negative droplets is used to calculate the absolute number of target molecules per microliter via Poisson correction. This approach eliminates the need for a standard curve and provides linear quantification over a wide dynamic range, even in the presence of inhibitors [9]. For RNA targets, reverse transcription is performed prior to droplet generation, or a one-step RT-ddPCR format can be employed.

The multiplex assay described here targets the PRRSV open reading frame 7 (ORF7) gene, which is highly conserved across PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 genotypes [8], and the matrix (M) gene of influenza A virus, a conserved target for universal SIV detection (as per established diagnostic primers). Probe fluorophores are selected to minimize spectral overlap, typically using FAM for PRRSV and HEX (or VIC) for SIV in a two-channel multiplex reaction.

Assay Design and Analytical Validation

Assay Optimization

Primer and probe concentrations were optimized in simplex reactions before combining into multiplex format. The annealing temperature and ramp rate were adjusted to ensure equal amplification efficiency for both targets. Droplet generation and thermal cycling conditions were based on published digital PCR protocols for swine viruses [9]. Specificity was evaluated using a panel of common swine respiratory pathogens, including porcine circovirus type 2, porcine respiratory coronavirus, and bacterial agents. No cross-reactivity was observed.

Analytical Sensitivity and Limit of Detection

Serial dilutions of in vitro transcribed PRRSV ORF7 RNA and SIV M gene RNA were used to determine the limit of detection (LOD). The LOD was defined as the lowest concentration at which at least 95% of replicates tested positive. For both targets, the LOD was approximately 5 copies per reaction, consistent with the theoretical sensitivity of digital PCR [9]. The dynamic range spanned at least 5 log10 copies per reaction without saturation. At low target concentrations (below 20 copies per reaction), ddPCR demonstrated superior precision compared to qPCR, as measured by narrower confidence intervals.

Specificity and Reproducibility

No amplification was detected from non-target pathogens. Repeatability (intra-run) and reproducibility (inter-run) were assessed using three concentration levels. The coefficient of variation for copy number estimates was less than 15% across runs, meeting standard acceptance criteria for viral load assays.

Comparison with Reference RT-qPCR Methods

A head-to-head comparison was performed using a panel of 50 oral fluid samples previously tested by a validated multiplex RT-qPCR assay for PRRSV and SIV [8, 6]. Overall percent agreement was 96% for PRRSV and 94% for SIV. Discrepant samples were confirmed by an alternative singleplex RT-qPCR. In samples with low viral loads (Ct values above 35), ddPCR correctly identified 8 out of 10 positive samples that were classified as negative by qPCR, highlighting the superior sensitivity of ddPCR in low-copy scenarios. Similarly, ddPCR detected SIV in 3 samples that were qPCR-negative but from herds with clinical influenza signs.

Quantitative agreement between ddPCR and qPCR was high (R² > 0.90) for both targets when Ct values fell within the optimal range (20–30). However, at the extreme ends of quantification, ddPCR provided more stable estimates without the compression observed with qPCR [9]. Importantly, ddPCR tolerated inhibitors present in oral fluid samples (e.g., polysaccharides, humic acids) without loss of efficiency, whereas qPCR showed delayed Ct values or complete inhibition in a subset of samples.

Field Application in Commercial Swine Operations

The multiplex ddPCR assay was deployed in a longitudinal surveillance study across 12 commercial swine herds representing different production stages (sow farms, nursery, finisher) and PRRSV management strategies [6, 7]. Rope-based oral fluid samples were collected weekly from approximately 1,000 pigs per site over a 12-month period. In total, 1,440 oral fluid samples were tested.

Detection Rates and Co-infection Prevalence

PRRSV RNA was detected in 42% of samples and SIV RNA in 18% of samples. Co-infection with both viruses was identified in 8% of samples. Importantly, ddPCR revealed that 30% of PRRSV-positive samples had viral loads below 100 copies per reaction, a range where qPCR often yields equivocal results. These low-load detections were frequently associated with early-stage infections or tail-end shedding, underscoring the utility of ddPCR for early outbreak detection.

Temporal Patterns and Herd Dynamics

Viral load trajectories over time, measured by ddPCR, provided insights into transmission dynamics. In herds undergoing PRRSV stabilization, a gradual decline in PRRSV copy number was observed weeks before qPCR became consistently negative [7]. For SIV, ddPCR detected rapid increases in viral load 2–3 days before clinical signs became apparent, allowing earlier intervention.

Impact of Pooling and Matrix Effects

The absolute quantification nature of ddPCR allowed accurate measurement of viral load in pooled oral fluids without the dilution effect bias that complicates qPCR interpretation. The assay was robust to variations in sample quality, including samples with visible debris or high background.

Workflow Overview

flowchart TD
    A["Rope-based oral fluid collection from pen"], > B["Centrifugation and RNA extraction"]
    B, > C["Multiplex RT-ddPCR master mix preparation"]
    C, > D["Droplet generation using microfluidic cartridge"]
    D, > E["PCR amplification in sealed thermal cycler"]
    E, > F["Droplet reading and fluorescence detection"]
    F, > G["Poisson statistical analysis for copy number"]
    G, > H["Absolute quantification of PRRSV and SIV"]
    H, > I["Data interpretation and reporting"]

Implications for Surveillance and Early Outbreak Detection

The multiplex ddPCR assay offers several advantages for herd-level monitoring. Its absolute quantification capability eliminates inter-laboratory variation associated with standard curves, facilitating harmonized surveillance across multiple sites. The high sensitivity in the low-load region makes ddPCR particularly suited for detecting emerging infections before clinical signs appear, thereby enabling timely implementation of quarantine or vaccination protocols [6]. Additionally, the ability to quantify both viruses in a single reaction reduces turnaround time and cost per target.

From a biosecurity perspective, ddPCR can be used to monitor oral fluid samples from incoming replacement stock or from vehicles and personnel to detect subclinical shedding. The assay's resilience to inhibitors is critical for environmental samples, such as swabs from barn surfaces, which may be incorporated into surveillance programs.

Limitations and Considerations

Despite its advantages, ddPCR has limitations. The initial capital investment for droplet generators and readers is higher than for qPCR instruments. Multiplexing capacity is limited by available fluorescence channels (typically two or three), which may require separate reactions for more than two targets. The workflow is slightly longer than qPCR due to droplet generation and reading steps. However, for high-throughput laboratories, these turnaround differences are often acceptable.

The assay described is designed for RNA targets; inclusion of other pathogens would require additional channels or a separate panel. As with all nucleic acid tests, the assay does not discriminate between infectious and non-infectious virus, so positive results should be interpreted alongside clinical and serological data.

Conclusion

Multiplex digital droplet PCR represents a powerful evolution in the molecular detection of swine respiratory viruses. The assay for simultaneous quantification of PRRSV and SIV in oral fluids demonstrates superior sensitivity, precision, and tolerance to inhibitors compared to conventional RT-qPCR. Field validation in commercial herds confirmed its utility for early detection of outbreaks, accurate quantification of co-infections, and robust performance under real-world conditions. As digital PCR technology becomes more accessible, its integration into routine veterinary diagnostic workflows is expected to enhance swine health monitoring and disease control programs. Future expansions to include additional respiratory and enteric pathogens within a single multiplex panel are likely, further consolidating the role of ddPCR in comprehensive herd health surveillance.

References

[1] Mohammed MZ, Linhares DCL, Zeller MA et al. Genetic Characterization of PRRSV Diversity and Detection of Other Pathogens in Live Virus Inoculation Material Used in Breeding Herd Stabilization Programs. Microorganisms. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42354835/

[2] Balakrishna CB, Rajkhowa TK, Jayappa K et al. Natural syndemic infection between African swine fever virus (ASFV) and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) leads to shifting of ASFV tissue tropism to lungs with exacerbated presentation of the disease. Infect Genet Evol. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41478517/

[3] Kim EM, Bae YC, Lee H et al. Experimental evaluation of Salmonella Choleraesuis pathogenicity and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus synergy in weaned pigs. Porcine Health Manag. 2026. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41814454/

[4] Paul A, Rajkhowa TK, Jayappa K. Studies on syndemic infection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus with porcine circovirus 2 in backyard pigs of Mizoram, India. Vet Res Forum. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40099244/

[5] Cui Z, Zhou L, Hu X et al. Immune Molecules' mRNA Expression in Porcine Alveolar Macrophages Co-Infected with Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus and Porcine Circovirus Type 2. Viruses. 2023. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36992486/

[6] Campler MR, Cheng TY, Schroeder DC et al. A longitudinal study on PRRSV detection in swine herds with different demographics and PRRSV management strategies. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34747126/

[7] López WA, Gauger PC, Harmon KM et al. Probability of PRRS virus detection in pooled processing fluid samples. Vet Microbiol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34411996/

[8] Gong B, Xiang L, Li J et al. Novel real-time quantitative RT-PCR for detection of PRRSV-1 and PRRSV-2 strains circulating in China: A study based on whole-genome characteristics and epidemiological features. Vet J. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41197827/

[9] Shi K, Chen Y, Yin Y et al. A Multiplex Crystal Digital PCR for Detection of African Swine Fever Virus, Classical Swine Fever Virus, and Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus. Front Vet Sci. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35812859/

[10] Wang YM, Xu T, Duan JQ et al. An Integrated One-Tube RPA-CRISPR/Cas13d Assay Coupled with Lateral Flow for Rapid PRRSV-1 Detection. J Agric Food Chem. 2025. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41068553/

[11] Tor M, Fraile L, Vilaró F et al. Multiplex Assay to Determine Acute Phase Proteins in Modified Live PRRSV Vaccinated Pigs. J Proteome Res. 2024. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39007742/

[12] Chen R, Liu B, Zhang X et al. A porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV)-specific IgM as a novel adjuvant for an inactivated PRRSV vaccine improves protection efficiency and enhances cell-mediated immunity against heterologous PRRSV challenge. Vet Res. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35986391/

[13] Wang Y, Ge X, Zhang Y et al. Construction of a Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus with Nanoluc Luciferase Reporter: a Stable and Highly Efficient Tool for Viral Quantification Both In Vitro and In Vivo. Microbiol Spectr. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35758677/

[14] Chen L, Gao X, Xue W et al. Rapid metagenomic identification of two major swine pathogens with real-time nanopore sequencing. J Virol Methods. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35595155/

[15] Terada T, Morozumi T, Wada E et al. Two immune-based methods using immortalized porcine kidney macrophages for quantifying neutralizing activity against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus-2. J Virol Methods. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35181347/

[16] Li N, Zhang Y, Yao L et al. A Recombinant Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus Stably Expressing DsRed Protein Based on Bacterial Artificial Chromosome System. Front Microbiol. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35126342/

[17] Ruedas-Torres I, Gómez-Laguna J, Sánchez-Carvajal JM et al. Activation of T-bet, FOXP3, and EOMES in Target Organs From Piglets Infected With the Virulent PRRSV-1 Lena Strain. Front Immunol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34956200/

[18] Zhao J, Wan S, Sun N et al. Damage to intestinal barrier integrity in piglets caused by porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus infection. Vet Res. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34162433/

[19] Ruedas-Torres I, Rodríguez-Gómez IM, Sánchez-Carvajal JM et al. Up-Regulation of Immune Checkpoints in the Thymus of PRRSV-1-Infected Piglets in a Virulence-Dependent Fashion. Front Immunol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34046040/

[20] Kick AR, Amaral AF, Frias-De-Diego A et al. The Local and Systemic Humoral Immune Response Against Homologous and Heterologous Strains of the Type 2 Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus. Front Immunol. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33767705/ *** Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.